Amazon Ad

Monday, October 31, 2005

This morning I wondered what a 1910 fast British armoured cruiser would be like. I ran a Springsharp design that increased the armour and speed, but not the armament. At almost 20,000 tons, a ship with 8-9.2in and 16-4in guns seems underarmed. The speed is nice, at 29 knots. The range is 5,400 nm, which should be adequate. This is the Springsharp report:

I thought that a fast 1906 armoured cruiser might be a way to better explore the ship design space. This is a 27-knot ship with 7in side armour and 8-9.2in guns. I lapsed back into my usual mode, so the ends are unarmoured and the side armour is a uniform 7in, 17ft high. I increased the length over my initial 545ft to 565ft. I am assuming that the main armament is in echelon, as sort of Indefatigable-like arrangement. I would think that there would be an 8-gun broadside possible, at least on some bearings. This is the Springsharp report:

Sunday, October 30, 2005

I wanted to see what might done on a smaller displacement that could reach 28 knots. I armed the resulting design with 6-5in QF guns, 2-3in AA guns, and 4-21in TT above water. The armour basis is 3in with a 1in deck. The gun shields are 3in, as well. This is the Springsharp report:

This is my British Light Cruiser design for 1912. It seems rather lame, but I insisted on 4in side armour with a 2in deck. The armament is the archaic layout with a gun at each end with 3 on each side for a total of 8-6in QF guns. The speed is a semi-acceptable 27 knots. That seemed to be the minimum that would be a reasonable scout for the battlefleet. Of course, if the battlefleet consists of 27 knot ships, perhaps 27 knots is insufficient! In any case, this class is really intended for use in distant waters with cruiser squadrons. This is the Springsharp report:

This is my attempt at a fairly fast 1910 British ocean-going light cruiser. I went with a 4in belt and a 2in deck. The speed is just 26 knots, but faster than the ships that were nominally 25 knots. The armament is 8-6in guns. I punted in that I did not do a detailed breakdown with guns and the ends and then guns on the beam. The size had to balloon more than I liked in order to achieve the proper composite strength. Apparently, for smallish ships, we accept a shorter roll period, and are happy that it is as long as it is. This is the Springsharp report:

Saturday, October 29, 2005

The obvious next step is to design a 1921-style British battleship-cruiser. We are almost required to have a 31-knot speed, so that and the 15in armour basis greatly increase the displacement. I wanted 9-16.5in guns as the main armament with the obligatory 16-6in QF guns in twin turrets. The AA armament is 6-4.7in AA and 32-40mm (2pdr) AA guns. This is the Springsharp report:

I was looking at the Queen Victoria class page, and thought about my 1912 design for a battleship-cruiser. The next obvious step would be to design a 1916 battleship-cruiser. The layout is pretty conventional with 8-16in guns in twin turrets in the usual arrangement. The secondary battery is 16-5.5in QF guns. I am not looking for extreme speeds (in this case), but I wanted an advance over the 1912 ships. I chose a maximum speed of 29 knots. As usual, the ships are large. The armour basis is 14in, so the design is well-protected. This is the Springsharp report:

I thought that I might try a 1912 British Battleship-Cruiser next. In many ways, it is not very capable, considering the displacement. I suspect that the reasons are:

17ft high 13in belt

Direct-drive turbines

I wanted a 4in deck, and perhaps that is more than is historically accurate, but I thought that deck armour of that thickness would make for a better-protected ship (obviously). I also mounted the 6in guns high on the ship. The greater portion are at the level above the forecastle, with 4 in the superstructure. These are somewhat like large, fast, Queen Elizabeths with the secondary armament mounted higher. They really are different, due to my insistence on a greater 13in armoured height. This is the Springsharp report:

Friday, October 28, 2005

So, why don't we give another try to a 1906 British Battleship-Cruiser. William Hovgaard's idea was to build these instead of battleships or armoured cruisers. The aging process would automatically create the slower battleline, as the newer ships got better. This design is probably handicapped by my insistence on a deep belt. That has required a greater displacement, in order to achieve adequate hull strength. I had wanted an 11in armour basis, but was not able to achieve that on this size ship. The idea is that this would have 8-12in guns in echelon, with 16-4in QF guns in casemates at the upper deck level and above. This is the Springsharp report:

Thursday, October 27, 2005

I thought that it would be interesting to try again to design a British "Battleship-Cruiser" (William Hovgaard-style) where the ship was fast, but had battleship armour. For 1909, a 13.5in-gun armament seemed appropriate. The secondary battery necessarily needed to be 16-4in QF guns for this date. I went with an armour basis of 12in with a 27-knot speed. It is so much more capable than the Lion class ships. Partly, this ship is larger, and partly, the all-oil fuel is a factor. The machinery is normal weight. I could not justify "all-or-nothing" in 1909, so the ends are armoured. From my perspective, this seems the ideal capital ship to be laid down in 1909. This is the Springsharp report:

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

This is my attempt at an anachronistic design using HMS Drake dimensions and displacement. Probably simply due to newer technology and date, the result is much more capable. I settled for a 6in armour basis. The armament is 8-9.2in guns in superfiring turrets and 12-4in QF guns in turrets amidships. The maximum speed is 27 knots. This is the Springsharp report:

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

I have thought about what a British armoured cruiser might have been like, if it were laid down in 1942. It has 9-9.2in BLR, 12-4.5in DP, 48-40mm AA, and 28-20mm AA guns. The armour basis is now 8in. The speed is a modest 32 knots. I initially underestimated the displacement that would be necessary. I also gave too long of an armoured citadel. I have shortened the armoured length. This allowed the armour basis to increase to 8in, instead of 7in. This is the Springsharp report:

For Frank Fox, the loss of the Mikuma at the Battle of Midway emphasized the need to remove above-water torpedo tubes from major cruisers. He might say "all cruisers", but I am not sure. The US Navy had reached that conclusion after the Battle of Santiago Bay in 1898, when the Spanish belted cruisers suffered from hits on torpedoes in the above-water tubes. The US Navy had decided that above water torpedo tubes were acceptable in light cruisers. For some reason, they originally included the first 8in-gunned cruisers in that category and gave them torpedo tubes. They were removed, and no new large cruisers included them. Only smaller light cruisers retained torpedo tubes. The opposing argument was that the Japanese heavy cruisers inflicted enough damage with their Long Lance torpedoes that the risk was worthwhile.

Monday, October 24, 2005

A purpose-built British armoured cruiser with guns in echelon works quite well. The armament is 8-9.2in BLR and 16-4in QF guns. The armour basis is 9in with a 3in deck. The speed is an acceptable 27 knots. This is the Springsharp report:

Sunday, October 23, 2005

My 1910 version of the Cressy class greatly outperforms the original. That seems to be largely due to the later building date and newer technology. I kept the dimensions and displacement, but went with a somewhat heavier armament (4-9.2in and 12-6in guns). The layout is very similar to my other anachronistic designs. This is the Springsharp report:

Saturday, October 22, 2005

This is my sketch of the my HMS Warrior, anachronistic 3rd Class Battleship design. As usual, it resembles a pocket WWII battleship with a tower mast. I realized that the Warrior was fast enough to fill the armoured cruiser role and would be able to scout for the battlefleet in 1916 at 22 knots. It certainly is better protected than the ships that were actually used at Jutland in the armoured cruiser role.

Yes, this is the anachronistic design of a ship that uses the displacement and dimensions of the original British ironclad, the Warrior. The length allows the ship to have a slightly higher speed than might otherwise be the case. I toyed with the idea of using 10in guns for the main armament, but settled for the 9.2in guns, instead. There are also 8-6in QF, 12-4in QF, and 8-6pdr QF guns. The armour basis is just 8in. This is the Springsharp report:

This is my sketch, somewhat cleaned up graphically, of my anachronistic design for HMS Defence. The drawing, as you can see, is almost diagrammatic, not a detailed, to scale, drawing. The look is that of my pocket WWII battleship genre. Admittedly, it is a pretty goofy idea, but I think it is a fun diversion.

This is my anachronistic 3rd Class Battleship design for a ship built to the dimensions and displacement of the early British ironclad Defence. My greatest problem was achieving adequate stability. There are tradeoffs between the various parameters to achieve an adequate composite strength in Springsharp, along with adequate stability and seakeeping ability. Considering that the displacement is only 6,150 tons, the design does quite well. It has 9in side armour, but restricted in height. There is a 3in protective deck and a 1.5in anti=torpedo bulkhead. The armament is 4-9.2in BLR, 10-4.7in QF, and 12-6pdr QF guns. The maximum speed is 19 knots with a 15 knot cruising speed for a range of 5,750 nm. This is the Springsharp report:

Friday, October 21, 2005

This is my anachronistic design for the Diadem, using the dimensions of one of Walker's big frigates laid down in 1855. Admittedly, it is a strange concept. I was surprised, again, how much good could be done within the scope of Springsharp. I was able to make a 20 knot convoy cruiser with a 3in protective deck. The cruising speed is a substantial 15 knots with a cruising range of 5,250 nm. The armament is 4-7.5in BLR, 12-4.7in QF, and 8-6pdr QF guns. There is a 1in anti-torpedo bulkhead. The ship would seem to be an adequate convoy surface escort. We might like a higher top end speed, but otherwise, it is acceptable. Others may not have a taste for such a thing, and I can understand that. This is the Springsharp report:

Thursday, October 20, 2005

I took the dimensions and the displacement for HMS Inconstant, laid down in 1866, and entered them into Springsharp. I gave the ship some armour, rather than leaving her unarmoured, and was able to achieve some speed and a good deal of range. Perhaps the armament is too heavy at 4-9.2in BLR, 10-6in QF, 8-4in QF, and 12-6pdr QF guns. The deck is 2in thick. I suspect that I could have had a better ship with 4-8in guns instead of the 9.2in. This is the Springsharp report:

I have played around with anachronistic versions of HMS Warrior since I was a teenager. This one works moderately well, as a 3rd Class Battleship or Armoured Cruiser laid down in 1910. It is suitable for service in distant waters or as a convoy escort. The armament is mixed, with 4-8in BLR, 10-6in QF, 8-4in QF, and 12-6pdr QF guns. The belt is 8in with the main and secondary armaments in twin turrets. The dimensions are those of the original ship from 1860, but laid down in 1910:

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

I have my HMS Imperiuse design for an anachronistic belted cruiser. The originals were laid down in 1881, but mine would be laid down in 1910. My design works pretty well. I am using Springsharp techniques that I learned from the Red Admiral, from Wesworld. This design has the same calibers and numbers of guns as the original, except they are of newer vintage. The dimensions and displacement is also that of the original. The resulting design is, of course, much more capable:

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

This version of the design for the Ger/CB/1943 matches my current thoughts about what such a ship should be like. The size is somewhat larger, so that a maximum speed of 37 knots can be achieved, along with an 18 knot cruising speed for a range of 8,000 nm. The belt is a modest 13in. I prefer twin turrets for the secondary and tertiary batteries, so the armament is 9-21in, 16-6in QF, 16-4in AA, 72-40mm AA quad, and 56-20mm AA single. This is the Springsharp report:

Monday, October 17, 2005

The only advantage to what I am calling the Ger/CB/1943 design is that it has a 14in belt and main armament protection. One of the 12in belt Ger/CB/1942 designs could reach 37 knots. This can comfortably reach 35 knots, and has a 9,000 nm range at 15 knots. This is the Springsharp report:

There is a longer version of the Ger/CB/1942. I had to accept a 40ft draft, which is ridiculous, but the design can make 37 knots, with a 15 knot cruising speed. This is with a rather thin 12in belt. The specification in the book was:

Amazon Context Links

Lotto System

Our Privacy Policy

Facebook

WIKIO

Google AdSense

Google AdSense

Amazon Ad

About Me

I spent 11 years on active duty in the navy. Half was as an enlisted man and half as an officer. My Dad had interested me in the navy and ships, when I was young. I found that I was attracted to doing research, regardless of topic, although much of that research has been in the fields of naval and military history. My Dad was also an artist, and got me drawing and painting since I was three. Much of my work consists of portraits of military and naval historical figures, as well as ships and tanks.